( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the order and decree dated 22-6-2001 passed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil judge, Kavali in E. A. No. 550/2000 in E. P. No. 191/2000 in O. S. No. 285/1983. By the impugned order, the Court below, allowed the execution application filed by the decree- holders under Order 21 Rule 97 C. P. C. and overruled the objections filed by the 3rd party objector and ordered for removal of the obstruction or resistance offered by him and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the decreeholders. Aggrieved by this order, the 3rd party objector has filed this revision petition.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri K. Someshwar Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-3rd party objector and sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 (plaintiffs)-decreeholders.

( 3 ) BEFORE referring to the relative contentions, it is necessary to note few admitted facts on record.

( 4 ) THE respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the suit in O. S. No. 285/1983 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali for delivery of possession of items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule property against respondents 4 to 6 herein and obtained a decree in their favour. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents 4 to 6 herein filed an appeal in a. S. No. 52/1992 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Kavali. The lower appellate court on appreciation of evidence and material available on record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the trial court, by judgment dated 28-9-1999. The respondents 4 to 6 herein again carried the matter in second appeal to this Court. In the meanwhile, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the execution petition for delivery of possession. When the trial Court entrusted the warrant to Amin for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and when the Amin went to the suit schedule property on 29-9-2000 for execution of the warrant, the petitioner herein who is the 3rd party to the proceedings, objected the execution, stating that he has purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 18-6-1999 from the respondents 5 and 6 herein. Thereupon the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the present E. A. No. 550/2000 under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 C. P. C. for removal of obstruction and for delivery of the suit schedule property. The trial Court allowed the said E. A. by order dated 10-11-2000 holding that the petitioner herein need not; be heard. Impugning that order, the petitioner herein filed a revision before this court in C. R. P. No. 5052/2000. This Court by order dated 23-1-2000 set aside the impugned order dated 10-11-2000 and directed the Court below to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein to file his objections and dispose of the E. A. on merits. Thereupon the Court below received the objections from the petitioner and passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Court below held that the enquiry is not necessary under Order 21 rule 102 C. P. C. It also held that the agreement of sale under which the petitioner is claiming, is hit by the doctrine of Us pedens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and also following the decision of this Court in J. P. Shankar Singh pacha Bee, allowed the E. A. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner herein who is the 3rd party objector, filed the present revision petition.

( 5 ) SRI K. Someshwar Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner placing heavy reliance on Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 C. P. C. submitted that the petitioner herein is a bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration under an agreement of sale, without the notice of litigation and he has every right to file an application under Order 21 Rule 99 C. P. C. and the Court shall determine the right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties as contemplated under Order 21 rule 101 and shall pass an order under order 21 Rul